Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33180162›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Survival among women diagnosed with screen-detected or interval breast cancer classified as true, minimal signs, or missed through an informed radiological review.

Kaitlyn M Tsuruda, Tone Hovda, Sameer Bhargava, Marit B Veierød, Solveig Hofvind

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03852953 (Under- and Overdiagnosis in BreastScreen Norway), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03852953 completednot on this map

Under- and Overdiagnosis in BreastScreen Norway

TypeobservationalSponsorNorwegian Institute of Public HealthRan2018 to 2020Enrolled3,915ConditionsBreast CancerArmsUnder- or overdiagnosed cancer, Screening
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kaitlyn M TsurudaSection for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, PO Box 5313, Majorstuen, 0304, Oslo, Norway.
Tone HovdaDepartment of Radiology, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, PO Box 800, 3004, Drammen, Norway.
Sameer BhargavaDivision of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Bærum Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, PO Box 800, 3004, Drammen, Norway.
Marit B VeierødOslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, PO Box 1122, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
Solveig HofvindSection for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, PO Box 5313, Majorstuen, 0304, Oslo, Norway. Solveig.Hofvind@kreftregisteret.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0178-8939
University of Oslo · NOOsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University · NOVestre Viken Hospital Trust · NO

Funding

Dam Foundation 2018/FO201362
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives"True" breast cancers, defined as not being visible on prior screening mammograms, are expected to be more aggressive than "missed" cancers, which are visible in retrospect. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited. We compared the risk of death from any cause for women with true, minimal signs, and missed invasive screen-detected (SDC) and interval breast cancers (IC).

methodsThis nation-wide study included 1022 SDC and 788 IC diagnosed through BreastScreen Norway during 2005-2016. Cancers were classified as true, minimal signs, or missed by five breast radiologists in a consensus-based informed review of prior screening and diagnostic images. We used multivariable Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of death from any cause associated with true, minimal signs, and missed breast cancers, adjusting for age at diagnosis, histopathologic tumour diameter and grade, and subtype. Separate models were created for SDC and IC.

resultsAmong SDC, 463 (44%) were classified as true and 242 (23%) as missed; among IC, 325 (39%) were classified as true and 235 (32%) missed. Missed SDC were associated with a similar risk of death as true SDC (HR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.49, 2.46)). Similar results were observed for missed versus true IC (HR = 1.31, 95% CI (0.77, 2.23)).

conclusionsWe did not observe a statistical difference in the risk of death for women diagnosed with true or missed SDC or IC; however, the number of cases reviewed and follow-up time limited the precision of our estimates. KEY POINTS: • An informed radiological review classified screen-detected and interval cancers as true, minimal signs, or missed based on prior screening and diagnostic mammograms. • It has been hypothesised that true cancers, not visible on the prior screening examination, may be more aggressive than missed cancers. • We did not observe a statistical difference in the risk of death from any cause for women with missed versus true screen-detected or interval breast cancers.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningNorwayBreast neoplasmsEarly detection of cancerMammographyMass screeningSurvival rate

Identifiers

PMID33180162
PMCPMC8043922
OpenAlexW3106387608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.